Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about traffic management because we are unlikely to add to the Council’s response, and an investigation by the Ombudsman would unlikely achieve anything more for Mr Y.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complains about the lack of taxi access through a road which is restricted for use of buses between peak hours. He says this impacts his livelihood as a taxi driver.
2. Mr Y says the Council deflected responsibility for his complaint and dismissed his suggestions.
3. Mr Y complains that the Council has failed to remove misleading signage on a public footpath, which has been placed by a local business. He says this signage damages his trade.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide:

• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Mr Y and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr Y complained to the Council about the lack of taxi access through a road which is restricted for use of buses between peak hours. Taxis are permitted to use the road in off-peak hours. The Council explained that the restrictions have been in place for many years, after a cabinet decision consultation. The acceptability of the proposal would have been considered at the time.
8. Mr Y says the Council deflected its responsibility for his complaint. The Council explained to Mr Y that it acts as the Highways Authority for the road, but that Woking Borough Council is responsible for the licencing of taxis and positioning of taxi ranks. The Council acknowledged this may be confusing, but clearly explained the different responsibilities of each Council to Mr Y.
9. Mr Y made suggestions to the Council about changing the location of a taxi rank. The Council explained why this would not be possible.
10. The Council has a right to implement changes to its roads, including restricting access on some roads and enforcing non-compliance of this in line with its policies. It has explained why it will not change the restrictions as requested by Mr Y. It also has a duty to ensure the expeditious movement of traffic on its road networks (Traffic Management Act 2004). This requires proactively managing congestion to reduce delays.
11. Mr Y complained to the Council about misleading signage being placed by a local business. The Council told Mr Y how this should be reported, explaining that removals of signage will be considered if it is blocking public highways. It has also explained how he can report parking issues.
12. Mr Y wants the Council to review all road regulations, but there is no evidence to suggest that its policies are not in line with the law. Mr Y wants the Council to compensate him for loss of earnings. We do not make recommendations for organisations to pay compensation.
13. As a publicly funded body we must be careful how we use our resources. It is unlikely we could add to the Council’s response, and an investigation would unlikely achieve anything more for Mr Y. Therefore, we will not investigate this complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman